Linux has too many choices?

[Mau]

One of the biggest arguments in favor of Linux and open source is that number of choices you have. We all seem that to be the greatest thing, but I think we should all take the time to listen to this lecture: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200&q=google+tech+talk

I know at least when I started to use Linux, I just picked KDE as my display manager because it was default with Mandrake. Perhaps there is too much choice?

All the best,

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I can't watch all of the video (you posted it two minutes ago), but I wanted to say Linux does have TOO many choices. Choice is good for little things, but not for the larger product. Gnome satisfies what I like, but if KDE and Gnome developers were one and only, we'd have one strong desktop environment. I truly believe in this, but my views are overshadowed by the majority of the Linux community.

[23meg]

I too have yet to watch the video, but...

How much is "too much"? Where would we draw the line? I'm sure that if we had fifteen windows managers instead of fifty (perhaps we have more; just an approximate figure), there would still be people who'd find it "too much choice".

Choice is good for little things, but not for the larger product.What is the larger product? Linux? A distro? A desktop environment? The whole FOSS universe? Specifics please.

if KDE and Gnome developers were one and only, we'd have one strong desktop environment. GNOME was developed as a response to KDE because KDE's licensing terms were found to be restrictive, and by the time they were no longer restrictive, GNOME had matured into an environment with a different view of how things should be done, one that serves a different set of needs and tastes. Had Trolltech not "freed" KDE, they'd also be serving people with totally different views of freedom.

FOSS projects develop as results of processes; they don't fall from the sky ready to be used. Wanting to restrict the amount of choice would mean denying the role of the process in FOSS development, which would go against its reason of existence. In other words, if the FOSS world were to deliberately deliver less choice, it wouldn't do as good. 1 + 1 != 2 .

[rattlerviper]

I think there just might not be enough "major" players...Too many? no way!

[aysiu]

My thoughts:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

[bjweeks]

One distro = Windows...

[Polygon]

choice is good. If there is one choice, then if you dislike something about it, then your pretty much stuck. but with lots of choice, there is a pretty good chance that everyone can be happier (or a lot more happier then with one choice at least)

[kabus]

I know at least when I started to use Linux, I just picked KDE as my display manager because it was default with Mandrake. Perhaps there is too much choice?


Pick the default, stick with it, never think about it again.
Problem solved.

[23meg]

Pick the default, stick with it, never think about it again.
Problem solved.
True; (even) if you find the diversity "too much", you can always choose one and ignore the rest. Distros such as Ubuntu make very sensible default choices for you; with Ubuntu you don't even get to select which packages to install, you just accept the defaults.

[Mathiasdm]

I don't have time to watch the video, but I would like to say several arguments against choice are wrong.

Myth 1: if all the distributions unite in one, development will be so much faster and better!

Wrong! More heads do not mean faster work. That's one of the reasons Vista took so long. Microsoft can't just say: "Let's add 1000 coders, things will go faster!"

If there are lots of distributions, there's a crossbreeding effect. The smaller distributions don't have to cater to millions of clients. They can develop innovative features on their own. If those features prove to be good, they'll eventually get implemented in the larger distributions.
If they fail, no worries!

Myth 2: working together on a big project is better than working on several projects!

Wrong! Look at Gnome, KDE, e17, XFCE and many others.
Why are they so good? Because there's competition. KDE implements innovative features... Gnome implements their own innovative features.
e17 thinks of radically new ideas... A few years later, they're in several desktop environments!
Once again, we have the crossbreeding effect.

Come to think of it, my two myths are the same:p

[3rdalbum]

Why is having multiple DEs such a problem, as long as their program's dependancies are available at the click of a mouse?

Linux's multiple desktop environments and window managers mean that Linux caters for power users, more basic users with good hardware, more basic users with not-so-good hardware, and users with VERY old computers. They cater for people who like a Windows-y interface, and they cater for people who prefer a Mac-like one.

Since Linux can be made to suit different users and different hardware through different DEs, it's more inclusive; and therefore it has contributed to Linux's user-base so far.

[red_Marvin]

If there were fewer choices there would be have to ethier be 1) fewer goals and specific purposes which isn't good or 2) the same amount of goals and spcializations but distributed on fewer utilities (one-thing-does-all) which will result in bloat.

[prizrak]

Choice is horrible. I was buying a laptop and I had to first choose between Intel and AMD. Then between ATI, Intel and nVidia graphics. Then there was the Centrino platform. The I had to look at Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Fujitsu, Toshiba. Then they each had at least 10 models, each with different specs. Then there was the tablets, regular laptops and the convertibles that can be either a regular laptop or a tablet. THE HORROR!

No wait what am I talking about?! I found a great convertible laptop that fit ALL of my specs. It's also a 100% operational out of the box (with a bit of tweaking for the tablet part) and is of great quality.

Choice was never bad, if you don't want to bother to choose then you use defaults (as has been mentioned), if you do want to choose you do your homework. Darwin's evolutionary principles apply to computing just as well as to bio societies. Diversity is good for evolution, you cannot get away from it. The code is open so if KDE comes up with something innovative we all benefit from it even if we don't use KDE. Same for Gnome and XFCE and anything else that is open.

If there was only one DE there would be no reason to improve it. Look at Windows the last big upgrade for their OS was 2K (NT 5.0), XP (NT 5.1) only has marginal improvements and Vista was supposed to come out in 2003 originally and is still nowhere in sight. At the same time look at the XBOX 360 it is an excellent piece of engineering (1st revision issues aside, that's normal) and is far cheaper than PS3 is going to cost. The reason for it being so good is competition, MS had to come out with it earlier and make it better because Sony is a VERY serious rival.

[aysiu]

Does Microsoft impose a prisoner mentality? (http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=does_microsoft_impose_a_prisoner_m entali&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)

[fuscia]

if you want to limit the choices, limit them to the ones i'd make.

[EdThaSlayer]

Diversity leads to perfection...
well thats what i think...
Because only the strongest would survive...and evolution will take place...
Linux has evolved...so much that what we have now...Ubuntu is one of the results.
(sorry i didnt explain the above the best way possible)
Also- if there was only one distro, wouldnt it just be like windows?

[Kaloma]

if you want to limit the choices, limit them to the ones i'd make.
Brilliant!

Edit: Sig!

[Brunellus]

I'm not sure how I feel about being told that I inhabit a Linux "halfway house."

[cstudent]

The only time too many choices bothers me is when I'm standing in front of a buffet table. I can find plenty of stuff I like, but I know I don't have stomach enough to hold it all.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I can see some people have quickly shot down the idea of too much choice being a problem! It's pretty clear 99% of these people haven't watched the video that was linked to from the original post.

Just watch the video. You'll see how too many choices leads to problems, especially for, in our case, distributions. The more distributions there are, the less interested a person will be in using Linux. The video will provide you with analogies and examples of studies done so far in which this has happened: when people were given too many choices, in many instances, they made horrible mistakes, and often times, the percentage of people using a single product declined.

Can you imagine the number of months it takes to go over the top Linux distributions, desktop environments, etc? Way too much time for anyone to make "the best decision." Most people don't have the time to burn as many CDs, see what hardware works with what distro, and see what they like.

Some of you are taking a common sense approach to this: surely more choices must be a good thing. Stop! Start thinking of this from an economics perspective. Common sense fails in many areas.

[win_zik]

Just watch the video. You'll see how too many choices leads to problems, especially for, in our case, distributions. The more distributions there are, the less interested a person will be in using Linux.

The second sentence doesn't follow logically from the first. Also, the magic word here is too many. However, looking at linux distributions, there simply aren't too many for the average guy and certainly not if you want to emply linux in a corporate settings.



The video will provide you with analogies and examples of studies done so far in which this has happened: when people were given too many choices, in many instances, they made horrible mistakes, and often times, the percentage of people using a single product declined.

Again, that having too many choices can in some instances be negative doesn't translate into there are too many choices in linux.



Can you imagine the number of months it takes to go over the top Linux distributions, desktop environments, etc?

Two days at most and then again, this is totally unrealistic. Most people trying out linux will settle with one of the first distributions they are exposed to or maybe the one their linux using buddy runs.
In a corporate settings the choices will be very limited by what is commercially supported anyway.




Some of you are taking a common sense approach to this: surely more choices must be a good thing. Stop! Start thinking of this from an economics perspective. Common sense fails in many areas.
I get the impression you have been reading a different thread than I have. Most people didn't simply take the "common sense approach", but provided solid arguments why they thought there isn't too much choice in linux.

[Brunellus]

I can see some people have quickly shot down the idea of too much choice being a problem! It's pretty clear 99% of these people haven't watched the video that was linked to from the original post.

Just watch the video. You'll see how too many choices leads to problems, especially for, in our case, distributions. The more distributions there are, the less interested a person will be in using Linux. The video will provide you with analogies and examples of studies done so far in which this has happened: when people were given too many choices, in many instances, they made horrible mistakes, and often times, the percentage of people using a single product declined.

Can you imagine the number of months it takes to go over the top Linux distributions, desktop environments, etc? Way too much time for anyone to make "the best decision." Most people don't have the time to burn as many CDs, see what hardware works with what distro, and see what they like.

Some of you are taking a common sense approach to this: surely more choices must be a good thing. Stop! Start thinking of this from an economics perspective. Common sense fails in many areas.
the follow-on question then becomes--if this is a bad thing, can it be stopped, or should it be stopped?

The answer in both cases is no. The only thing that's monolithic about Linux is its kernel architecture. Constraining choices in an effort to drive further adoption is unworkable, since the nature of the licenses involved (the GPL and other free software licenses) makes effective control impossible.

Would the world be better off with One True Distro, One True Text Editor, One True Browser, and so forth? Maybe. Is that possible in the free software community? no.

[prizrak]

I can see some people have quickly shot down the idea of too much choice being a problem! It's pretty clear 99% of these people haven't watched the video that was linked to from the original post.

Just watch the video. You'll see how too many choices leads to problems, especially for, in our case, distributions. The more distributions there are, the less interested a person will be in using Linux. The video will provide you with analogies and examples of studies done so far in which this has happened: when people were given too many choices, in many instances, they made horrible mistakes, and often times, the percentage of people using a single product declined.

Can you imagine the number of months it takes to go over the top Linux distributions, desktop environments, etc? Way too much time for anyone to make "the best decision." Most people don't have the time to burn as many CDs, see what hardware works with what distro, and see what they like.

Some of you are taking a common sense approach to this: surely more choices must be a good thing. Stop! Start thinking of this from an economics perspective. Common sense fails in many areas.

If you want to think economically think about it like this. Probably something like 80% of computer users will use w/e is included with their computers. They will not even get rid of the OEM crap that is usually put on their machines or bother installing even the ever popular iTunes. Unless they got an iPod and they need it. My g/f is one such user and she installed 2 things on her computer, one was iTunes and the other Firefox and only because I showed it to her and she liked it over IE. In reality it doesn't matter how many distro's there are as only one or two will ever make it to widespread OEM adoption. If Dell starts preloading Ubuntu on their machines and make it easily discoverable and starts seeing a decent amount of sales the rest will follow. It's called brand awareness, other OEM's wouldn't preload SLED (OpenSuSE) or RedHat (Fedora) or Mandriva on their machines because Ubuntu would be the brand that non geeks are aware of. The geeks will install w/e they want because they are geeks.

It also doesn't matter which distro gets picked up by a major OEM as support for one distro automatically translates into support for all distros. On top of that there is the LSB initiative that is striving for binary compatibility across different distros making it largely irrelevant what you are running.

The choice isn't bad by any means, there will always be a leader that is adopted by the masses no matter how many choices you have. Hell look at Firefox, everyone knows about it. Few know about Mozilla, Epiphany, Swiftfox or that other one I can't remember that is based on the same engine. So there is a well known leader and a bunch of derivatives that those with more specific needs know about.

[aysiu]

It took me about a week to find one distro to try out for a month. Then, I immediately started using Ubuntu, and I've stuck with it ever since. Sure, I experimented with other distros just to see what was out there, but I didn't feel the need to spend months giving a fair shot to every single distro on DistroWatch.

How about instead of just giving people a bunch of choices, you let them make an informed choice? DistroWatch has a list of top-ten distributions with descriptions.

And, if you're really lazy. Take this quiz.
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/

It's not that difficult.

I want choices in cars, apartments, universities, food, jobs... why wouldn't I want a choice of operating system?

[prizrak]

I actually thought of a better way to illustrate my point. Here it is.

As I said before no matter what the choice there will always be an industry leader (or a couple) that has massive market share and is known by many. There will also be smaller companies that will provide for some more specific needs that the consumer might have. To illustrate that point on the OS market lets look at servers.

According to the latest statistics that I have come across Linux has a 25% market share on servers. Windows has a 49% share and other OS's comprise the rest of the market. Now what do we see here?

Windows is the industry leader with the most market share on the server. It runs on 49% of all of the world's servers and obviously fits the needs of the users who run them.

Linux based OS's run on 25% of those servers. They do things that Windows servers either don't do or don't do as well. For instance Windows can't run well on slower machines, it doesn't have the same uptime and generally is not very good if speed counts due to loading alot of things that might be unnecessary for a given server. You would think that between Windows doing just about anything and 300 or so Linux distributions that can be customized to just about any situations you would not need anything else.

Well there are still 26% of servers that run some other OS. Be it BSD, or UNIX or Solaris or even Netware (is that one even supported?). That means that neither Linux nor Windows are able to serve the needs of those who run the other OS's. There are even realtime OS's that make sure that our nuclear power plants don't go Chernobyl on us and we actually survive for another generation or so.

The point is that choice cannot possibly be bad. Even in Linux land some distros are alot more popular than others. Compare Ubuntu to Yellow Dog Linux. There will always be some brand everyone knows and a bunch of smaller ones that work for other people.

[aysiu]

By the way, I will not watch a video just because someone says, "Watch this video" and provides a link.

I'll read an essay or article if you link to it, but a video is too involved. I don't feel like watching a movie just to get a point.

If you link to a video and want people to watch it, link to it and then explain briefly the main points of the video.

[zxee]

Pick the default, stick with it, never think about it again.
Problem solved.

kabus, you hit the nail on the head! LOL Why is this even an issue?
I really don't understand. If you don't like making choices then don't!
Personally I'm glad that there are many choices-but I also don't stay up at night worrying that I haven't tested every possible distro available.

[Erik Trybom]

I believe Ubuntu is rapidly evolving into the "default" Linux distribution. If you want to try Linux, you try Ubuntu first.

This solves most choice problems. Ubuntu comes with a lot of standard programs, which means you don't have to choose until you want to. It starts, perhaps, with installing Thunderbird instead of Evolution. The next step might be to try out KDE instead of Gnome. And by the time you've understood the basics and know your way around an Ubuntu system, then you know enough to try another distro. If you like.

Short answer: too much choice? Just try Ubuntu.

[neighborlee]

I believe Ubuntu is rapidly evolving into the "default" Linux distribution. If you want to try Linux, you try Ubuntu first.

This solves most choice problems. Ubuntu comes with a lot of standard programs, which means you don't have to choose until you want to. It starts, perhaps, with installing Thunderbird instead of Evolution. The next step might be to try out KDE instead of Gnome. And by the time you've understood the basics and know your way around an Ubuntu system, then you know enough to try another distro. If you like.

Short answer: too much choice? Just try Ubuntu.

I dont agree based on the fact that ubuntu isn't even listed as a LSB member ( this is going to happen when I wonder ). I wont use a distro that does not think LSB is important, because to me that does not address the importance of standards, and if ubuntu can't see that then they aren't the future. No matter if they are #1 at distrowatch ( big deal ?) it wont matter if linux still only has 5% marketshare as no one will benefit for alongtime to come..if IBM and redhat, suse, mandriva, linspire ( freespire), xandros, mepis and others know LSB IS important and use it, then why the heck can't ubuntu see it ;)

I think one of the posters comments was correct about gnome vs kde but there are reasons why both are valid ( one goes for customization and the other for DUMBifying things blah! ). IMO we do need consistency ..has windows been hurt by having ONE DE ? lol..NO of course not, so show me where choice has made linux so incredibly successful, which is where it matters yes ? ( not some geek mentality which only matters to other geeks )I love linux, but not because I've had great IRC experience or necesarily even good forum ones but because of a virus free env and bccause my pocket book is better for it ( those that are poor have options and that is GREAT).

In the market place of ideas the one that mattesr most to people is behind able to get things done in the easiest manner possible, as you know at end of day people have 'real lives' and whatever works the quickiest and with least headaches is what they will use...even if it means dealing with virus's ;))

One that that I find horribly lacking is that one distro will now use the nvidia installer where you dont even have to exit X, and another removes nvidia installer from yast ( guess which one I mean) and makes you now do it OUTSIDE X, unlike the one that uses pirut for installing things ( fedora here ). I agree choice is good, but sometimes I think it creates problems and I and other friends have been 'caught' in this revolving headache exactly because of that.


cheers
g.leej (nl)

[aysiu]

From four months ago (http://www.freestandards.org/wordpress/?p=173):
“LSB-compliance is very important for Ubuntu,” said Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu founder and chief developer. “We believe that Linux offers the world freedom of choice, freedom to innovate and freedom to localize. The Linux Standard Base is a crucial enabler of those freedoms, creating confidence in the standardization of the core platform while still preserving the ability of the platform to evolve and improve.”

[23meg]

What it comes down to is: even if choice and diversity are found to be inherently bad and undesired, there's no way they CAN be restricted in the FOSS world.

To anyone who believes in restricting choice: would you like to restrict it, or rant about why it should be restricted? If you'd like to do the first, start a campaign, do well reasoned online propaganda, set up websites, etc., get your point across to the people who matter and see where you can get with that. If you'd like to do the latter, you can do it endlessly here and elsewhere. Nothing will change.

I'll post back in context of the lecture once I have time to watch it.

[zxee]

Originally Posted by neighborlee In the market place of ideas the one that mattesr most to people is behind able to get things done in the easiest manner possible, as you know at end of day people have 'real lives' and whatever works the quickiest and with least headaches is what they will use...even if it means dealing with virus's )


So the point being that linux should become more like windows? If winning means being like that then I don't want to win.
The whole point to alternatives is that they are indeed alternatives not copies of what the marketplace tells us is most popular.
I never liked windows when I used it at work and I don't care if it obtains 99.9% market share. Popularity is not, to me, synonymous with quality, creative expression, or usability.

[neighborlee]

From four months ago (http://www.freestandards.org/wordpress/?p=173):

yeah I know about that..

but if you go here:

http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/misc/lsb-core

you see that atm the LSB is more of a 'almost there' than a reality..unless something has changed, and it hasn't been updated. It would be nice to know that ubuntu is 'compliant' period like the other major distros.

cheers
g.leej(nl)

[G Morgan]

The one question I always have is

Why do people want to make Linux as bad as Windows to gain market share?

What Linux offers me is choice, that is its value. Who cares if only 5% use it. If it abandoned a lot of what makes it useful to gain market share then we may as well have stayed in the MS jail.

Being popular is not important, being useful is. Let others worry about market share. Linux doesn't want or need 99% of the market.

[prizrak]

I dont agree based on the fact that ubuntu isn't even listed as a LSB member ( this is going to happen when I wonder ). I wont use a distro that does not think LSB is important, because to me that does not address the importance of standards, and if ubuntu can't see that then they aren't the future. No matter if they are #1 at distrowatch ( big deal ?) it wont matter if linux still only has 5% marketshare as no one will benefit for alongtime to come..if IBM and redhat, suse, mandriva, linspire ( freespire), xandros, mepis and others know LSB IS important and use it, then why the heck can't ubuntu see it ;)

I think one of the posters comments was correct about gnome vs kde but there are reasons why both are valid ( one goes for customization and the other for DUMBifying things blah! ). IMO we do need consistency ..has windows been hurt by having ONE DE ? lol..NO of course not, so show me where choice has made linux so incredibly successful, which is where it matters yes ? ( not some geek mentality which only matters to other geeks )I love linux, but not because I've had great IRC experience or necesarily even good forum ones but because of a virus free env and bccause my pocket book is better for it ( those that are poor have options and that is GREAT).

In the market place of ideas the one that mattesr most to people is behind able to get things done in the easiest manner possible, as you know at end of day people have 'real lives' and whatever works the quickiest and with least headaches is what they will use...even if it means dealing with virus's ;))

One that that I find horribly lacking is that one distro will now use the nvidia installer where you dont even have to exit X, and another removes nvidia installer from yast ( guess which one I mean) and makes you now do it OUTSIDE X, unlike the one that uses pirut for installing things ( fedora here ). I agree choice is good, but sometimes I think it creates problems and I and other friends have been 'caught' in this revolving headache exactly because of that.


cheers
g.leej (nl)

Did having one GUI help OS X in any way shape or form? If anyone takes care of choice is Apple you get their hardware with their software. Yet they are still at about the same market share as Linux on the desktop and are nonexistant on servers.

On the other hand Linux is very successful on servers @ 25% market share after only being around for 15 years as opposed to MS's and Apple's 30 year history. On the other hand Netware that didn't have the crazy amount of choice Linux does is no longer even being made despite being probably the best network OS ever in existance.

What is the point? The point is that GUI choice and such has very little bearing on product success. After all Windows has thousands upon thousands of applications developed for it, including different graphical shells actually. Yet Windows with all that diversity has 95% market share on the desktop and 49% on the server. The reason is MS's business practices, marketing and defaults. A default Windows install includes some applications and only one GUI and that is fine for most people. Those who don't like it install Media Player classic instead of WMP, Litestep instead of Explorer and Firefox instead of IE. They could also put Opera, Mplayer or Windows blinds on. Or something else I have no idea about, choice exists in the Windows world as well and doesn't seem to hurt the success of that OS.

[neighborlee]

The one question I always have is

Why do people want to make Linux as bad as Windows to gain market share?

What Linux offers me is choice, that is its value. Who cares if only 5% use it. If it abandoned a lot of what makes it useful to gain market share then we may as well have stayed in the MS jail.

Being popular is not important, being useful is. Let others worry about market share. Linux doesn't want or need 99% of the market.

That you can actually say with a smile 'who cares if only 5% use it' shows the elitist attitude that is going to kill linux, before it helps it. Who cares about others long as my needs are fulfillled huh ;)

If you truly dont understand why market share is important, then you obviously dont care about the average consumer who might struggle with various hardware or software, as likely you have everything you need working and dont care about the 'little guy'..well bravo for standing up for what matters :))

A good education is a terrible thing to waste::

http://www.freestandards.org/en/End_Users

This is all about us rather than them; We can't be about tolling our own bells when the greater good is at hand.



cheers
g.leej(nl)

[win_zik]

That you can actually say with a smile 'who cares if only 5% use it' shows the elitist attitude that is going to kill linux, before it helps it. Who cares about others long as my needs are fulfillled huh ;)

If you truly dont understand why market share is important, then you obviously dont care about the average consumer who might struggle with various hardware or software, as likely you have everything you need working and dont care about the 'little guy'..well bravo for standing up for what matters :))

A good education is a terrible thing to waste::

http://www.freestandards.org/en/End_Users

This is all about us rather than them; We can't be about tolling our own bells when the greater good is at hand.



cheers
g.leej(nl)

Hm, let's see: Someone argues that linux should not abandon one of its great advantages just to gain market share.

Now there are certainly many possible answers to this position. One could argue that greater market share would offer bigger advantages than the one abandoned, one could argue that linux doesn't need to abandon this advantage at all to gain market share, etc.

Why on earth someone would then choose to mischaracterize what was said as meaning "I don't care about others" only to then personally attack the guy who never said this in the first place is beyond me...

Edit:
About the relevance of the LSB:

MySQL and RealPlayer Certify to the Linux Standard Base

Two of the most widely used applications on Linux will achieve application portability and be represented on the LSB Steering Committee

http://www.freestandards.org/wordpress/?p=230

[aysiu]

Market share matters in the Ubuntu world:
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1

[neighborlee]

Did having one GUI help OS X in any way shape or form? If anyone takes care of choice is Apple you get their hardware with their software. Yet they are still at about the same market share as Linux on the desktop and are nonexistant on servers.

What is the point? The point is that GUI choice


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200&q=google+tech+talk

it is long but its worth it because it explains what choice can do...

Choice in a few different applications is one thing, but when you toss in hundreds or thousands of choices then things get ridiculous espeically when those choices aren't all maintaining adequate standards like their contemporaries are.

Your reference to applications is meaningless because as I mentioned , windows has ONE DE instead of several which makes the choice moot for its users, meaning all they have to worry about is themeing ;) ( whoop). Like windows or not the DE is adequate enough to keep 95% of the public interested enough along with the supporting vendors. I do expect this to change not because of all the 'choices' linux brings but more because of the shackles it removes from peoples pocketbooks.

Choice sometimes is good obviously but there are times it can stagnate and confuse, as the video clearly demonstrates if you care to view it ;)

cheers
g.leej(nl)

[aysiu]

Like windows or not the DE is adequate enough to keep 95% of the public interested enough along with the supporting vendors. It's not the fact that most of those users have to use Windows for work, see it on almost every computer for sale, and think Mac is "too expensive"?

[Kindred]

I want more choice, not less. I also have the 'who cares if only 5% use it' attitude, and why not.

[aysiu]

You can have whatever attitude you want, but if you want Ubuntu to have only 5% market share, your goals are at odds with Mark Shuttleworth's and Canonical's.

[win_zik]

You can have whatever attitude you want, but if you want Ubuntu to have only 5% market share, your goals are at odds with Mark Shuttleworth's and Canonical's.

not care != want

[aysiu]

Semantics.

Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu and Canonical all care about Ubuntu having more than 5%. That's what bug #1 is:
Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix. https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1

[win_zik]

Semantics.

Hm, I find it rather important if someone says:
I want linux to only have 5% market share
or
I don't care if linux only has 5% market share

There seems to be a rather big difference between the two for me.



Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu and Canonical all care about Ubuntu having more than 5%. That's what bug #1 is: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1
I don't think anyone disputet this. However, I fail to see how this is relevant. Does everybody have to have the same goals a Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth?

[aysiu]

There seems to be a rather big difference between the two for me. Not in this context.



I don't think anyone disputet this. However, I fail to see how this is relevant. Does everybody have to have the same goals a Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth? No, and I never said they did. I stated that if you didn't want (or care to have) more than 5% market share, your goals are at odds with Mark Shuttleworth.

I didn't say those who are at odds with Shuttleworth or Canonical don't have the right to express their opinions. Nor did I state they should be put to death or are necessarily wrong.

All I said is that they were at odds with Ubuntu's company goal. That's all I said.

[Kindred]

I wasn't specifically talking about Ubuntu anyway, I don't even use it hence the opinions of Mark Shuttleworth or Canonical are the least of my concerns really.. anyway this is perhaps going a little off topic.

[win_zik]

Not in this context.

Care to explain why?

[aysiu]

Care to explain why?
Sometimes when people say "don't care," they really mean they're against something. For example, if I say, "Yeah, I really don't care about tipping waiters," I generally mean I won't be tipping waiters. However, if I say, "I don't care about the war in Iraq," I am probably really apathetic about it.

I took, in this context, given the aggressiveness of the conversation that people meant "I don't care" in an almost unwanting way and less an apathetic way.

Even if you took it to be apathetic, you could always take the "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" attitude, too, and look at it this way:

You are at odds with Mark Shuttleworth/Ubuntu/Canonical either way--not caring or actively not wanting.

Their goal (which you don't have to agree with, but it still remains their goal) is to increase Ubuntu's market share.

If you don't care, you're not helping to increase it. And if you're opposed to the increase, you're also not helping to increase it.

Now, certainly if you don't care, you're not hurting the market share--you're just dead weight--but if you are actively against it, well, you're hurting it. Either way, you're not helping.

[aysiu]

I would like to stress, though, that you have every right to be against Mark Shuttleworth/Ubuntu/Canonical.

If you like 5% market share or are honestly apathetic about market share, no one's going to come after you with a big knife.

[prizrak]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200&q=google+tech+talk

it is long but its worth it because it explains what choice can do...

Choice in a few different applications is one thing, but when you toss in hundreds or thousands of choices then things get ridiculous espeically when those choices aren't all maintaining adequate standards like their contemporaries are.

Your reference to applications is meaningless because as I mentioned , windows has ONE DE instead of several which makes the choice moot for its users, meaning all they have to worry about is themeing ;) ( whoop). Like windows or not the DE is adequate enough to keep 95% of the public interested enough along with the supporting vendors. I do expect this to change not because of all the 'choices' linux brings but more because of the shackles it removes from peoples pocketbooks.

Choice sometimes is good obviously but there are times it can stagnate and confuse, as the video clearly demonstrates if you care to view it ;)

cheers
g.leej(nl)
As Google Video happens to be flash I don't always have sound. That is point #1. I am at work and can't randomly look at long *** videos that is #2. As Aysiu said, summarize the key points or at least try to find a transcript which we would happily read.

Here is a #3. Windows DOES NOT have only one DE, it has one DEFAULT DE. Just like Ubuntu's DEFAULT is Gnome, Windows' DEFAULT is Explorer. You can EASILY install Litestep INSTEAD of Explorer. You are NOT THEMING Windows with Litestep, you are REPLACING the DE that ships with Windows.

The choice in applications is not meaningless, I am not aware of any Linux application that is Gnome/XFCE/KDE/Fluxbox/FVWM only. They can all quite happily run in any environment as long as their dependancies are met. Such is also the case in Windows believe it or not, if you are old enough to remember DLL hell you will understand that there is very little difference in how the environment behaves for the end user.

As I have previously stated if you want to keep arguing the choice point take a look at Apple. Apple sells one OS with one GUI with a limited set of applications. To make it worse there are fairly few applications that are made for OS X (well compared to Linux/Windows). The hardware also comes from Apple and only has a few models to choose from. So how is it that Apple, that actually makes a good product, only has 5% market share as opposed to the massive 90% that Windows does?

P.S. Since you keep bringing up the video let me explain something to you. The video is not the final authority on the subject, w/e it shows is just an argument with some support. I am offering my argument with my support that is based on cold hard facts. Telling me to watch the video will not make what I said not true. This is not exact science, as a former business student I can tell you that no one actually knows why a product fails or succeeds. There is no metric to really measure what makes Windows successful and OS X or Linux not. It is a combination of factors, if Linux was around when IBM created the PC architecture and Gates never existed there is a good chance we would be using Linux and not Apple despite them already being there.

[aysiu]

As far as I know, there are going to be about seven different versions of Vista. A lot of choice there.

And how many PC vendors are out there for Windows? HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony... the list goes on.

Do you think any of that choice is going to hurt Windows?

[win_zik]

Thanks for your explanation aysiu. I mostly agree, but I had a problem with assuming that not care means not want. Now you are right that people often use these interchangibly, but I simply found it unfair to assume that's the case especially after some people (not you) did so rather aggressivly.

Anyway, thanks for clearing this up and now let's get back on topic.:D

[aysiu]

I could be reading people wrong. Maybe they are genuinely apathetic. It's hard to read tone of voice on a forum.

[red_Marvin]

Call me elitist but I simply don't think that linux should try to attract the average, more or less computer illiterate, big marketshare, users on the cost of the more advanced users. However, Note that I don't oppose distros doing it as it simply is what distros are there for; to cater to the specific needs of a certain user group. I also have nothing against if a distro would simplify itself and remove advanced options to get a big marketshare and succeed and get 75% marketshare. BUT remove the other distros?
Never.
It's like saying "Hey guys 95% of the people uses a normal car, let's stop producing trucks."

Marketshare isn't everything. There's something called niche too.

[aysiu]

Even if Ubuntu gets adopted by more than 10% of the general computing populace... even if it gets to more 60%... there would always be Slackware, Linux from Scratch, and Gentoo... or at least some derivatives from those three.

[neighborlee]

It's not the fact that most of those users have to use Windows for work, see it on almost every computer for sale, and think Mac is "too expensive"?

linux is partly to blame..sometimes too much choice shows lack of standards, and course lack of adoption of the LSB shows that problem too, although 'most' of the big name distros are onboard with this, and it would be nice to get a reply from ubuntu leaders as to why ubuntu is slow to do this. I admire/like alot of ubuntu but admittedly its still overall a geeks distro.

It is also clear that many people wont use any distro that makes it 'hard' for them to get things working out of box for average everyday needs, and b rowser plugins is a major issue for all distros except freespire and others where these work out of the box. IF that means paying for the priviledge so be it, Im sure man would be elated to do just that until ( if ever ?) ogg/theora are common place...

cheers
g.leej(nl)

[aysiu]

I was responding to your earlier implication that it was Windows desktop environment that kept people using it.

[red_Marvin]

Even if Ubuntu gets adopted by more than 10% of the general computing populace... even if it gets to more 60%... there would always be Slackware, Linux from Scratch, and Gentoo... or at least some derivatives from those three.
If that was directed at me: Of course, the GPL (as some other person posted) makes "erasing" a nonstandard distro impossible. But even if it was possible it still wouldn't be desirable (to me).

[23meg]

Your reference to applications is meaningless because as I mentioned , windows has ONE DE instead of several which makes the choice moot for its users, meaning all they have to worry about is themeingLikewise, Ubuntu has ONE DE instead of several which makes the choice moot for its users. Ubuntu is an operating system, just like Windows is. Just like Windows has made the decision to include the Windows DE for its user as opposed to the Litestep DE, Ubuntu has made the decision to include the GNOME DE for its user as opposed to KDE.

The above is in complete ignorance of the vast differences between the closed and distributed development models, which I had stated as the basic reason why choice CANNOT (not should or shouldn't; CANNOT) be restricted in the FOSS world, but it still works.

[zxee]

I think that it's naive to believe that the marketplace is an objective and/or acurate measure of what is good or best.

I hesitate to mention my employer again but this corporation spends many millions of dollars on windows software each upgrade cycle. In my experince there were enormous workplace problems involved in using windows and getting it working even minimumly effeciently. But the decision was made by someone way up in the food chain so the employees get to use what that decision provided. As an aside tech support which I dealt with was located in India-try to think how that worked out. LOL

Also let's face it sometimes the purchasing decisions of managers isn't based on what works-if they even knew-since their skill set isn't usually that of the worker bees. No those decisions are more based on questions like; what will cause me the least trouble or what will have the least potential of damaging my career. And when talking about big business with large purchasing power we're not generally talking about people who will even consider taking risks. Risks like open source-oh yeah (where's the eye rolling emoticon?)

There's a whole lot more to how a product reaches majority use than simply quality or some myth of the "blind eye" of the marketplace.
There are no altruistic products out there. There arn't even products with heart. Business managers don't like them-they don't even like product loyality. (yeah I know this is heresy) but loyality often reduces purchases because people of that mindset sometimes hang on to a product too long.
We don't want good products just good consumers.

So you want that coveted position from the OS from Redmond? Just dumb your linux down. It's true; eliminate all choices, lock up the system so people can't figure out what's happening, and produce a lot of system packs to encourage your users to look forward to your next crumby release.
And that's your winning linux.

[prizrak]

Also let's face it sometimes the purchasing decisions of managers isn't based on what works-if they even knew-since their skill set isn't usually that of the worker bees. No those decisions are more based on questions like; what will cause me the least trouble or what will have the least potential of damaging my career. And when talking about big business with large purchasing power we're not generally talking about people who will even consider taking risks. Risks like open source-oh yeah (where's the eye rolling emoticon?)
Exactly! As the saying goes "No one got fired for buying IBM".

[aysiu]

So you want that coveted position from the OS from Redmond? Just dumb your linux down. It's true; eliminate all choices, lock up the system so people can't figure out what's happening, and produce a lot of system packs to encourage your users to look forward to your next crumby release.
And that's your winning linux. Linspire hasn't won yet.

[zxee]

Linspire hasn't won yet.

It hasn't followed the plan. I sort of outlined. has it??
I don't know I've never used linspire.

[prizrak]

linux is partly to blame..sometimes too much choice shows lack of standards, and course lack of adoption of the LSB shows that problem too, although 'most' of the big name distros are onboard with this, and it would be nice to get a reply from ubuntu leaders as to why ubuntu is slow to do this. I admire/like alot of ubuntu but admittedly its still overall a geeks distro.
Standards is something else to consider actually. Linux adheres to open standards and the kernel and toolset are the same on all distro's (unless it's a heavily modded embedded version). The problem with LSB lies in binary vs source compatibility. If you care you can look for Mark's Wiki page where he talks about his Ubuntu decisions. I will save you some time and give you a little summary of what he thinks of binary compatibility.

(he was talking about it in reference to Debian)
It is meaningless and is not something that is Ubuntu's goal. The reason for it is that Ubuntu was created so that Mark would have control over his distro and how his ideas are implemented. If he didn't care he would just sponsor Debian. The point was that if Ubuntu can be compiled with GCC4 and it offers improvements either right now or in the future (as long as nothing is broken) it will have GCC4 installed. Even if Debian is still using 3.9 (I don't know actual version numbers). LSB is the same in a sense, in LSB you would have to wait until LSB commitee would decide to go to the new version of libraries in use. There are also different release schedules that would pose a problem. Maybe Edgy will be LSB1.0 compliant but RedHat and SLED won't be because the old version already went out. There is updating of course but it can also be tricky as you need to test to make sure everything is working.

LSB is in its infancy and so far it's hard to tell how it will turn out. It would make alot more sense to adopt dpkg for all distros and set up online repositories the way Ubuntu does that way vendors can supply .debs that would get their dependancies resolved automagically.

[prizrak]

It hasn't followed the plan. I sort of outlined. has it??
I don't know I've never used linspire.

They pretty much did actually. They even have CnR where you can buy all those fun things like codecs and such.

OS X hasn't won yet either and it's basically what you said, cept it's BSD instead of Linux but the idea is the same.

[aysiu]

So you want that coveted position from the OS from Redmond? Just dumb your linux down. Linspire dumbed down...? Yes.
It's true; eliminate all choices, Linspire eliminates all choices? Yes.
lock up the system so people can't figure out what's happening, Linspire does this, too.
and produce a lot of system packs to encourage your users to look forward to your next crumby release. Hm. I'm not sure Linspire does this, but do you really think that's what's holding it back from "the coveted position from the OS from Redmond"?

And that's your winning linux. I don't think it is.

I've tried Linspire 5.0. It assaults you the same way Windows does. "Do you want to do this?" "Here, look at this!" The first thing that happens when load up is a video tutorial orientation to Linspire (just like the Windows XP tour).

Your first user is root. Adding an additional user is considered an "advanced options" option.

If you try to exit CNR, it just starts up again.

apt-get and Synaptic are broken. Basically, you're stuck with CNR unless you do some convoluted hacks.

KDE appears to be the only option. Gnome is in the CNR warehouse, but I doubt you'll find many Linspire users using Gnome.

[G Morgan]

Just to clarify my own position on the 'I don't care if we only have 5%'. What I meant was having a 5% market share was preferable to turning Linux into Windows.

We should strive for a bigger market share but it should be because Linux is good at what it is. There is no point in solving bug 1 to become a new Windows. Who'd benefit through that.

The goal should be to offer something different to Windows. We should condemn ourselves to the fate of obscurity before we become what we are trying to replace (if we are indeed trying to replace it).

There are projects out there to out-Windows Microsoft. Syllable and ReactOS to name 2. This is Linux and has its own strengths and they should be maintained. If lack of choice is truly that important then eventually one of the OSes mentioned or another will overtake Linux.

[aysiu]

It depends on what you mean by "become like Windows."

Since Ubuntu's whole point is to promote free software and since Ubuntu is based on an open source kernel, how "like Windows" can it get?

If it ever went the "wrong" direction, anyone could fork a distribution off it and make it "right." Besides, Ubuntu doesn't develop most of the applications associated with it. Windows makes Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Outlook, among other applications. Ubuntu does not make Gnome, KDE, XFCE, OpenOffice, Firefox, Konqueror, Rhythmbox, or Evolution.

You'll never be reliant on just Ubuntu for your needs, no matter how big it gets.

[Raistlin355]

I don't think it's the choices that scare people off. I personally would like to see Ubuntu (or Linux in general) on more desktops. I think that if people just gave it a chance, the market share would just take off, but as it is people are generally scared of CHANGE not the operating system. I have an uncle the uses pc's, his brother uses mac's, and I use pc's with windows and linux as well as mac's. My uncle that only uses pc's is constantly asking his brother and me "can you do this with mac or linux?" everytime I see him and I know why, he's looking for reason's NOT to change his current setup, he's not looking to make sure he won't lose functionality, he doesn't want to change. I gave him a copy of Dapper Drake and to my knowledge he has not used it yet. :(

[Erik Trybom]

Windows is bad in some areas.
Windows has a bigger market share than Linux.
So logically (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTj1dP2KyQ8), if Linux wants to gain the same market share as Windows, it must get as bad as Windows.

Very very small rocks, indeed.

[aysiu]

Windows is bad in some areas.
Windows has a bigger market share than Linux.
So logically (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTj1dP2KyQ8), if Linux wants to gain the same market share as Windows, it must get as bad as Windows. I'm not sure if you're kidding, but this makes no sense and is based on the assumption that Windows has a bigger market share because it's bad in some areas.

Windows wouldn't lose its market share if it were perfect, and Linux won't gain any by being bad in some areas. Sorry.

[Pelekophori]

As far as I know, there are going to be about seven different versions of Vista. A lot of choice there.

And how many PC vendors are out there for Windows? HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony... the list goes on.

Do you think any of that choice is going to hurt Windows?

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if 7 different versions of Vista hurt Windows and the uptake of Vista a little.

Some people only able to afford the cheaper basic versions may come to resent missing functionality and rate Vista accordingly.

Less technically inclined upgraders might find 7 options a bit confusing and thus stick with XP. With XP, a user buying a Windows upgrade faced a basic choice of home or professional (simplifying a little). No technical knowledge or prior research of the product was needed to define oneself as one or the other and thus reach a purchasing decision. Framing the upgrade choices in those terms seems like a pretty clever way to reach the many users who are somewhat computerphobic.

Conversely, Vista's set of choices looks more of a recipe for confusion and therefore procrastination for users who don't want to think about their computer too much.

[Raistlin355]

Windows is bad in some areas.
Windows has a bigger market share than Linux.
So logically (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTj1dP2KyQ8), if Linux wants to gain the same market share as Windows, it must get as bad as Windows.

Very very small rocks, indeed.

Thats ridiculous. Your saying the since windows is bad and has market share, linux must also be bad to gain market share? Correct me if I'm wrong but if it's bad why would it gain market share in the first place? Windows was fortunate enought to have someone without a conscience owning the company so he could steal stuff, and under pay developers, so they could bring an OS to market, and oh yeah tailored for the hardware!! Now the problem is that the hardware is tailored and coded for the OS, and this is why Linux is having a hard time catching on, because it is always playing catch up to windows.

[Mau]

Wow! A lot of replies!

Sorry in advanced for all my spelling, grammer, and otherwise stupidity in this reply. I also lightly urge you to read and think with an open mind. I myself love choice, but let's just take a step away from reality and think abstractly for a moment.

I'm sorry about not posting a transcript. I'm on summer vacation and didn't feel like taking notes! But, in short, the speaker suggests that having so many choices causs average people to become confused and either: a) make no choice at all, or b) make a choice, but then feel they have made the wrong one. For example, the problem with themes: there are TONS of themes out there and I always keep changing them because I'm not satsified with my current one. This comes down to the choice part -- if there was no choice, I would be forced to use a theme, and think nothing of it. This is why I never worried about changing my windows theme, because it was too complicated. Another example: if you truly do not care about which operating system you use, you're likely to pick one at random and get one that doesn't do what you need it to do.

To continue the summary, the speaker adds an interesting element about agents. If the agent makes the choice for you, you can blame the agent and not yourself. That's why we have real estate agents, stock brokers, mentors, and so on. They make the choice for us. When you buy a new computer -- from Dell for the sake of this example -- you can blame for Dell for putting Windows on your computer if something goes wrong. However, if something goes wrong when I install Linux, I blame myself.

I'm not proposing that we throw out choice -- I like the choice. But to the prospective people, they have to make the choices themselves. Let's take email clients for an example. I keep changing my email client because I know there are so many that one must fit me perfectly.

So, why no choice? To stop frustration. Many people use Windows because they feel they have no choice and that's just the way it is. To steal an example from the video, back in the "day" there was just the phone company. There wasn't VoIP, long distance, local distance, and so on. It was all one package and just came from the "phone company." You even had to use their phone. And people accepted that because that's just the way it was. If you can, think back to the day when you were 5. I remember brushing my teethe was just something that I did, and that was that. There was no alternative.

Again, if you want to really hear the argument, watch the video. My inaccurate summary does not do justice. It may not apply to Linux, but I thought this video was interesting and thoughtful. It's fun to think about and the video is funny.

I realize why this could cause people to be upset is because, from my understanding, communism seems to be rooted in this and most of us are used to saying "it's a free country." But, remember, communism is the absolute extreme of this. I'm not proposing communism (in fact, I'm not proposing anything, just thinking out loud), but I think it's something to think about, but not really act on. Another example came to be: the bootloader. I don't care what bootloader I use, so I just picked "grub" because Ubuntu recommended it. I don't feel frustrated with it, but perhaps lilo is a better choice for me?

I think the speaker missed one point (but touched on it), and that's the new craze of mass customization. If you don't know already, that's where you can send a picture of your dog to a company and they put it on a mug, t-shirt, hat, whatever. The interesting thing here is that with mass customization, we have basically an infinite amount of choices -- and we know exactly what we want. Choice is good if we know exactly we want, which many of you experienced users know. But my parents don't know what they want -- they just want to check email.

The point comes down to frustration and who you blame. Revealing my age somewhat here, I recently got my grandfather up on the computer. He first used Windows because that's what the used computer came with, and he blamed Microsoft for everytime he couldn't dial in (though it was really AT&T, but you get the point)--but he lived with it. Then I (the agent) switched him to Linux because it would be easier to help him over the phone (I can see what he sees) and now he "blames" me for all the problems, even though the problems haven't changed. And it's a lot easier to blame Microsoft than blame myself.

Anyways, to end this too long post, I'll pose a question: What if we did a mass customization system with Linux? What would that look like? And, what do you think about happen if you took Ubuntu and rebranded it as another operating system with no reference to Linux without any choices?

Sorry if I contradicted myself throughout, but the speaker calls this a paradox, thus no real solution! :-({|=

All the best,

Edit: Also, wanted to reply to someone on page 1 who said just to go with the default: that still does not solve the problem. I know there are choices and I'm an individual. I want to be different and not like everyone else so I'm bound to experiment.

[aysiu]

And, what do you think about happen if you took Ubuntu and rebranded it as another operating system with no reference to Linux without any choices? I think this (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=212081) would happen.

[23meg]

And, what do you think about happen if you took Ubuntu and rebranded it as another operating system with no reference to LinuxIt's perfectly doable. An OS is an OS; what kernel it uses doesn't have to be of interest to all its users. I try to avoid the word "distro" in certain contexts and prefer "OS".

Note that Ubuntu doesn't call itself "Ubuntu Linux" as opposed to some other distros; this is perhaps to emphasize its integrity as an OS, because Ubuntu spends lots of resources on integrity and coherence.

Also note that such a derivative would actually add more choice: regular Ubuntu vs. Ubuntu derivative with no Linux branding.


without any choices?What choice does Ubuntu provide already? It doesn't even let you choose which packages to install; it provides its defaults and expects its "average user" to be happy with them. How much less choice can there be?

[Mau]

That choice does Ubuntu provide already? It doesn't even let you choose which packages to install; it provides its defaults and expects its "average user" to be happy with them. How much less choice can there be?

A lot of choices are still left to the user. A new app is a password and a click away via apt. And there are many different flavors of that app.

In Windows, there's only one of each major, everday application. To the average user, you're going to be using either Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Office. Sure, you can use Firefox or Thunderbird or OpenOffice, but the market share of people using Outlook and Office are very high. IE is about 85% last I checked. Even if you find an alternative application, you're very warry of spyware or adaware, so you don't have must of a choice.

Then look at virus scanners -- there are tons of choices and not many people have one. I'm not saying that the reason why no-one has one is because of the amount of choices, but it may be a factor.

I suppose it may not be choice, but the possibility of choice.

[23meg]

Look at it this way: in Ubuntu, there are centralized repositories that the "average user" is meant to stick to, whereas in Windows you have a whole world of third party apps scattered all over the place. More choice? You bet. Apps in centralized repositories are known to be malware-free and functional, whereas you can't say the same for third party Windows apps.

The possibility of choice will always exist. What matters is how sensible the defaults you ship are, for what percentage of your intended audience. And in that department Ubuntu undeniably kicks Windows' *ss.

Anyway, third party apps shouldn't have part in this discussion; we're talking about the OSes themselves.

[Mau]

Apps in centralized repositories are known to be malware-free and functional, whereas you can't say the same for third party Windows apps.
Absolutely -- but about half of my windows friends don't download anything because they're afraid of spyware. They are limited to what they pay for at the local computer shop. In Linux, I have more choices because I'm not afraid of infecting my computer with a backdoor or virus. [-o<

For example, look at the Allegory of the Cave (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm). The "prisoners" in this thought experiment are bound by no choice and that's just the way it is. My friends that use Windows are bound of no choice because of fear and they think that's just way it is.


The possibility of choice will always exist. What matters is how sensible the defaults you ship are, for what percentage of your intended audience. And in that department Ubuntu undeniably kicks Windows' *ss.
I agree because I think we must have choice; heck, I picked Linux because of the choices.

I think the way Firefox advertises is very smart: they don't advertise the choice of web browsers, they advertise Firefox and tell you that there's something better. They are being the agent.

From the video that I forget to mention, the speaker talked about that choice is a selling point. People want choice. But, in practice, the choice can complicate matters. His example was a cafe that had thousands of items on the menu, but they also had a "special" that was what everyone picked. My example is FF's extensions. They are a selling point, but in the end I just install the ones that are recommended by the site.

[aysiu]

My friends that use Windows are bound of no choice because of fear and they think that's just way it is. Does Microsoft impose a prisoner mentality? (http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=does_microsoft_impose_a_prisoner_m entali&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)

[Mau]

Does Microsoft impose a prisoner mentality? (http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=does_microsoft_impose_a_prisoner_m entali&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) Very interesting and very funny! Where do you find these things? :D I do think that Microsoft makes you prisoner. It's very hard to get someone to switch to Linux because of all the software they paid for -- it doesn't matter if there's a free alternative out there because I don't want my money to go to waste.

I know someone who would switch to Linux, but she doesn't because of Photoshop. Would Gimp work fine? Certainly, because she doesn't utilize some of the advanced features of Photoshop. But, she already shelled out the big bucks ($600?) and doesn't want to the investment to go waste.

When I switched to Linux, I did so because I had already switched to open source software: FF, TBird, OO.org, Notepad++. I called myself a linux/open source/foss advocate that used Windows. So, switching to linux was natural.

[prizrak]

Mau,
You have touched on this briefly. The problem is not the choice but the agent making the choice. If Dell shipped Ubuntu instead of Windows the end user would not be aware of choice. How many new computer users who get XP know that it's NT5.1 and that there was Win2K before it. It kinda goes back to the defaults. The people who don't want to bother with choice just get a machine that has an OS preinstalled be it Windows, Ubuntu or OS X they largely don't care.

Basically this video is a nice study into choice and human laziness but as far as the market goes the choice problem is not nearly as important as it may seem.

[Mau]

So I'm now realizing that I may have created one of those threads that comes up every month or so. Oops.

When I was watching it, the video made me think of web-hosts -- there are probably a million out there. 75% of them are identical and lack support and uptime. Then I got to thinking about Linux and realizing it was similar with 20 applications that do the same thing in a slightly different way.

So, move along. Nothing to see here. ;)

[Mau]

Double post -- moderator please delete.

[Erik Trybom]

I'm not sure if you're kidding, but this makes no sense and is based on the assumption that Windows has a bigger market share because it's bad in some areas.

Windows wouldn't lose its market share if it were perfect, and Linux won't gain any by being bad in some areas. Sorry.
Of course it doesn't make sense! I was just trying to illustrate the horrible excuse for logic that some people use to explain why Linux must offer less choice.

My link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTj1dP2KyQ8) was the witch scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail. You can read the text here (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm) if you don't want to watch it.

[enopepsoo]

RMS wrote the GPL to ensure freedom, including forks.
:arrow:

[prizrak]

So I'm now realizing that I may have created one of those threads that comes up every month or so. Oops.

When I was watching it, the video made me think of web-hosts -- there are probably a million out there. 75% of them are identical and lack support and uptime. Then I got to thinking about Linux and realizing it was similar with 20 applications that do the same thing in a slightly different way.

So, move along. Nothing to see here. ;)

LOL, it's all good it was a different angle to look at if nothing else :) You are right about the webhost vs 20 similar apps comparison. It is very much true, the outcome of that is that there is no differentiation and ultimately makes no difference what you choose.

[jonathansizz]

You need to separate out the users who see computing as a way of life, who are not at all phased by an abundance of options, and the vast majority of users who see computers as appliances like any other.

To these users, their PC is what they have to use in order to send email, browse the web, work with photos and play klondike. They don't want choice - they want one way of doing things that should be attractive, reliable and idiot-proof (preferably as similar as possible to the way they currently do things, too.).

That is why GNOME is the right choice for Ubuntu - they continue to simplify things (to the point where most power users have long since changed DE's in frustration), whilst keeping everything as easy on the eye and the brain as possible.

Ubuntu should include one application for each job, and stick with it. They should also try to get the other two big players (Red Hat & Novell) on board to do the same thing. Now that it looks like the big three have settled on GNOME for their default DE, things will probably advance in the right direction.

[prizrak]

Ubuntu should include one application for each job, and stick with it.
They already do that. Although I think Ubuntu should abandon totem in favor of mplayer as totem doesn't play well with Firefox.

[neighborlee]

You need to separate out the users who see computing as a way of life, who are not at all phased by an abundance of options, and the vast majority of users who see computers as appliances like any other.

To these users, their PC is what they have to use in order to send email, browse the web, work with photos and play klondike. They don't want choice - they want one way of doing things that should be attractive, reliable and idiot-proof (preferably as similar as possible to the way they currently do things, too.).

That is why GNOME is the right choice for Ubuntu - they continue to simplify things (to the point where most power users have long since changed DE's in frustration), whilst keeping everything as easy on the eye and the brain as possible.

Ubuntu should include one application for each job, and stick with it. They should also try to get the other two big players (Red Hat & Novell) on board to do the same thing. Now that it looks like the big three have settled on GNOME for their default DE, things will probably advance in the right direction.


I wholeheartedly agree about end users need for simplicty and just one reliable app, which overall ubuntu does a great job of admittedly. Gnome however Im a tad surprised at, for DUMBifying things, which gosh led to mighty linus abondoning gnome .. However having a menu editor not standard ( even windows allows this on a certain level and its easy ) and having alt-f2 not allow choice of user to run a given app, ( considering su is necessary for some things yes ? ) I find odd at best, since indeed kde has this option enabled for its UI and why not...were UI studies done or something showing that it confused people ? ( seems unlikely but Im happy to ask )

I Also find gnome's conrtrol panel menu lineup cluttered not unlike how mandriva used to be. Windows has used a central control panel for sometime ( most everyone knows about it) and its worked for them so I dont understand why the perceived needed change on this. If gnome wants easy why bother cluttering up the gnome menu with all those preferences options when you can put inside a nice control panel ;-) ( think yast here or mandriva's offering or heck just flat kde ).

anyway just some of my take on things albeit with all those things I find to be lacking I do prefer gnome, and I state that only to agree with prior poster in that gnome is becoming a standard it seems, I just hope they consider the advanced user as well and strike a happy medium.


cheers
g.leej(nl)

[aysiu]

Please let's not let this turn into a Gnome v. KDE flamewar.